One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Monday, June 05, 2017

Ask JKM a Question: Star Trek Discovery Trailer?

A
reader named Jill writes:

“What
did you think of the Star Trek: Discovery trailer, and
the negative fan response to the casting selections?”

Jill,
that’s a great question! I am posting
the trailer below as a reference point for the discussion.

Okay,
first things first: what did I think of the trailer?

This new incarnation of Star
Trek looks cinematic and spectacular, and the trailer also suggests that
the new series will possess a sense of fun. The special effects and make-up may be pure 2017, but we are still going to examine the final frontier alongside bizarre aliens, with weird customs. I find that cool. The spirit of Star Trek lives.

The
production values are extraordinary, just as one would hope.I
understand that the elephant in the room -- or aboard the starship -- in this
case, is the non-“historical” production design.

Fans
have complained that this ship, and its technology -- as well as the uniforms of
the officers -- don’t resemble the original series and its era. And, of course, Discovery is set ten
years beforeThe Original Series.

I
am sensitive to this criticism, for certain.

In
a very real sense, Star Trek is a period piece. We know what the 23rd
century should look like…and it didn’t look like this.

By contrast,
Rogue
One (2016) featured a forty year old “look” successfully, and did not
revise it to keep up with the times. Old Star Wars was respected, recreated, and put front and center, without hesitation.

So
why could the creators of Star Wars be faithful, visually, to their
universe’s (dated) visual history? Was there not some way for the makers of Discovery
to do the same?

Does Star Trek inherently deserve less
respect?

On
the other hand, I know that time has passed, yes, and that our culture has
moved beyond the “blinky lights” aesthetic of Star Trek (1966-1969), as
well as the bright, colorful, clean lines of 1960’s futurism.

This
Star
Trek series must thrive in a 21st century environment, and
appeal to a generation that has grown up with smart phones and other modern
technologies. So I understand why a new
look was deemed necessary in terms of starship interiors for Discovery.

We also have some counter-evidence about faithfulness, to cheer up old fans: the communicator and tricorder designs look familiar, so there's that to consider.

Other
changes are of more concern, at least to me. I do hope we get an explanation
for why the Klingons look different here.

Perhaps
they are a variant of the race we haven’t seen before. Changing the Klingon
look without an explanation seems, at this point, a change for the sake of
change, and unnecessary. But, let's be clear: we are all responding to clips from a two minute trailer. The series may fully explain all of this.

I try not to get overly upset about things before I have all the information about them, and I think that's a good mantra for fans at this point.

Still, it is baffling to me why the Starfleet uniforms of Discovery don’t match at least the
color coding audiences saw in “The Cage” or the Original Series. To
be absolutely clear: I don’t expect the uniforms to be identical to a design
from 50 years ago. I am fine with a new design, given how often Starfleet
uniforms change, apparently, at the drop of a hat.

But
a nice way to remind us of the show’s in-universe “historical” era would be a
nod, at least, to the command structure/department color scheme.

I
can see why some longtime fans are upset about these cosmetic changes, since
they don’t reflect what we know of the “in-universe” history, but -- again -- in no way are
these factors a deal breaker for me at this point.

I
still look forward to the series, and feel that Star Trek works best in a
series setting.

In
terms of the negative response to the casting, I won’t mince words: it
embarrasses me.

It
makes me sad that there exists a contingent of viewers
who are (derogatorily) calling this program Star Trek: SJW (Social
Justice Warriors).

This
snide designation has been given, apparently, because we have an Asian captain,
and an African-American first officer on Discovery.

I
typically find that -- although there are indeed some real SJW pains mouthing-off
on the net -- the bigger pains, by far, are the ones who complain incessantly
about social justice warriors by using that pejorative term.

Apparently
anti-social justice warrior folk (A-SJWs?) are upset that social justice
warriors are pushing their “politically correct” beliefs on others, when the same A-SJWs are enforcing the same bigotry upon readers by painting all
activists under the brush of “poser” or “snowflake.”

Basically,
railing against social justice warriors is a way of squelching debate and
discouraging engagement and activism.

Social
progress/justice is not, in and of itself, a negative thing. Previous generations of those who pursued social progress were known by names such as "abolitionists," or "suffragettes," or "Civil Rights Activists."

Let’s
face it: these A-SJWs are, in some sense, the same folks who argued, twenty-five years ago, that you can’t add anything to established Academic “canon” in universities and colleges, to permit
new literary voices into a field of study.

Under
the umbrella of “freedom,” the A-SJWs (assjaws?) actually are attempting to gate-keep, limit freedom, and
establish a box around what is acceptable in art.

In
terms of Discovery, the argument is even more nonsensical.

Why?

Star
Trek has
always been explicitly about social progress, about the next frontier of social progress.

The
original series put on the bridge of a UFP starship a former enemy of the United
States (a Japanese man) and a then-current enemy of the United States (A Russian!)
and said that in the future of the 23rd century, we would be at
peace with both; that old prejudices -- and current ones -- could and would fall
away.

Star
Trek Deep Space Nine
(1993-1999) had an African-American man and a female first officer in command
of a space station. It was the next
frontier of social justice.

And
Voyager
(1995-2001) landed a woman in command of a starship, with a Native American man at
her side, as first officer.

Discovery
is not one
iota out of line with the grand historical tradition of Star Trek.

Not
one iota.

In
fact, I’ll make a bolder statement. Discovery is more aligned social
progress-wise with Star Trek history and tradition than it appears to be at this early juncture, in
terms of production design.

To belabor the point, here’s
the l reason why I said that so many A-SJWs can be bigger pains than the
people they criticize: many are hypocrites.

I see them write, all the time, on the net that they only judge a
work of art on “merit,” not on “surface” ideas like gender, race, ethnicity and
so forth. Yet in dismissing Star Trek: Discovery now -- from a 2
minute trailer -- what are they basing their caustic dismissal on?

It
can’t be merit.

Because...they haven’t seen a single episode yet. Not a single episode.

So
as much as social justice warriors can be irritating, at least they are up
front, typically, about what they want to see in the arts: equal representation.

Anti-social
justice warriors are supposed to, in theory, be about not judging by that value.

Yet
they are the first to complain about a black Stormtrooper, an Asian captain, or
an all-female screening of Wonder Woman (2016).

So the truth is exposed.

They aren’t judging merits, folks.

They are gate-keeping. They took one look at Finn
in The
Force Awakens, or an Asian Captain in Discovery, assume a political agenda they don't agree with, and don’t wait to judge on the merits.Instead they instantly assign a pejorative term (SJW).

And
that’s why so many of these ASJWs are the true "snowflakes," to use a currently in-vogue term. They are so determined to gate-keep based
on their own political agenda -- which they hypocritically claim isn’t
political at all -- that they can’t even wait and see what Star Trek Discovery actually
delivers in terms of art, drama, and character, to make a fair assessment.

They
certainly don’t appear understand the tradition of Star Trek, either; that
the franchise has always pushed social boundaries, to show us how we can “live
long and prosper” in a more egalitarian, diverse society.

So, in response to the second part of the question you asked: the grotesque reaction to Discovery by anti-social justice warriors saddens me, just like the response to Furiosa in Mad Max, or to Finn in The
Force Awakens saddened me.

4 comments:

John, my one and only concern about Star Trek:Discovery is the production design. If it is good, then I am okay with it not fitting into canon history. It would have been much more proper if, as you stated, the colors of the uniforms were canon.

J.J. Abrams had respect for Star Wars production design much more than he had for Star Trek. I do not think a Budweiser Brewery would have been allowed to be the engine room set of a Star Wars star destroyer as it was the Enterprise in the 2009 film.

I'm with you on the uniform classification, John. I fully understand and buy into the idea that even a prequel has to be packaged with the trappings of the current audience taste in order to have currency, so that everything has to have a "retro" look and feel while actually appearing updated beyond Star Trek TOS. I get that. But I find it just annoying--and stupid, actually--that this somehow gets reduced down to ignoring even what little was really codified in original Star Trek. Why does currency mean there cannot be some adherence to the uniform and departmental classification schemes originally established? It would help not only connect the old with the new, but also lend a sense of authenticity to Starfleet. Uniform schemes and departmental structures don't arise out of nowhere, they arise out of traditions that are connected to good old common sense. Ignoring things like that for no reason except to make everything different just draws attention to and creates fuss over minor details in a way that producers actually don't want and are trying to avoid. If you keep throwing babies out with the bathwater, you can't complain when people look around and exclaim, "Hey! Weren't there babies in here earlier? Where'd they all go? And why?"

John,Very nicely said, and I couldn't agree more.In fact, I have stopped reading comments on general Trek websites, such as Rod Roddenberry's, because a great many of them are so horribly abusive and abhorrent.In one case, a woman had the temerity to state that she enjoyed Star Trek Beyond. The reactions ranged from "how dare you" to "you should kill yourself," and I am not even exaggerating.Reading such comments and hearing of the racial and misogynist backlash reminds me of a cartoon from the book "The Days Go By Like Broken Records" by Jeff LeVine. In the cartoon, two twenty-somethings get their hands on a high-powered rifle and start shooting random people as they walk down the street. They're on a brutal shooting spree, overjoyed at the murders they're committing, when one of them suddenly remembers that there's a new episode of Star Trek - The Next Generation on that evening, so they run home to catch it. They love Star Trek, but can't hear at all what it is trying to say to them.The people calling Discovery "Star Trek: SJW" would never make it on the starship Enterprise. They would most likely be patients on Tantalus V. They're not fit to hold Captain Kirk's jock, and I'm being nice.I'm excited to see what the creators of Star Trek: DISCOVERY have done. It's always more fun to look into the future, rather than to stay in the past.Steve

To borrow a line from a certain, and underrated, SF film and apply it here with little modification: "(Star Trek) must evolve."

One can be influenced by the original series, the template, but the ideas must grow from there. It's decades later. Having said that, the new show looks to be a certifiable visual mess. The problem is, I feel, technology has allowed to do this sort of business cheaper and easier. From a financial standpoint that is not a problem, just from a creative one. Why not throw as much crap into the frame as you feel is necessary? It's not as though a captivating story counts for anything. (Captivating to those outside the Trekkie core/Corp; the franchise's television ratings have been dismal for the last few incarnations.)

I live in downtown Toronto and if someone on the "Discovery" team was able to sneak me into the sound stage I would take a pass. And I don't mean a 'stage pass'.

To be fair, however, "Discovery" may turn out to be just that. One never knows. When the CTV network premieres it here in Canada I will at least watch the first episode (chapter).

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)